Welcome to National Institute Manuel Dorrego

Key to Get Overseas Scholarship

Maybe, this question not only happened to me, but also to those who had managed to study outside of the other hemisphere, mainly because they got scholarships.

HOW COME? HOW TO?

Some may feel this question is very frustrating because, hey, if you really want to know, you can actually find information yourself on Google without asking me. But no, I myself might be among those who have asked the same question. Even though the process is clear and certain, that is seeking information, registering, completing requirements, praying, and waiting for the results. However, this question repeatedly popped into his head. Because to be honest, sometimes I am still surprised and half do not believe I can get a Fulbright scholarship to America, at one of the universities that I think is quite prestigious, namely the University of Arizona. Bear Down!

I personally feel lucky, but many also encourage me that it is not just luck, but also because of my struggles and my parents’ prayers. When I got this scholarship, I was not at an ambitious stage like when I was in college, where I was obsessed with getting the best grades and graduating as the best.

When applying for this scholarship, I surrendered, I was serious and tried my best, so if it didn’t work, I wouldn’t be too disappointed because at least I tried. However, then I realized, it was also the accumulation of my efforts during school and work, which at first was not to create a good CV in order to get a scholarship. In fact, when applying for a job or scholarship, the footprint will be taken into account as well. How serious have you been in studying or working before, so that you are entitled to this scholarship? How responsible are you going to school and previous work so you definitely won’t abuse this scholarship?

I dare say this because I have proven it. I don’t feel so smart that I can go to America. I used to dream of traveling around the world, but I felt it was only limited to wishful thinking. I remember also praying that I would be given the opportunity to go abroad even though I did not really feel the purpose. But it did come true.

I am just an ordinary Indonesian child who comes from a village that may not have an echo. My parents are just ordinary small farmers. Not even one in my family is an office employee, or a civil servant. I am the first generation to continue schooling to junior high, high school and college. Maybe that’s why I really meant it because I didn’t want my parents to go to waste. However, I myself feel that my thinking, even today, is very narrow because my world is small, and I only accept what is presented to me, a thought that I am still trying to change. So if some people feel I am humble, that is not entirely true, because I really do not have anything to boast about. When I was in school when I was a champion or when I got a good GPA, I knew I could take responsibility for it, because I really learned, tried and did not just relax, let alone cheat to get the value ‘A’. Everything comes with a price, I don’t think so because it’s really smart from the sononya. So, this is what I want you to think:

ALREADY TURNED AND HONEST YOU WHAT ARE YOU DOING NOW?

Being able to study in America is indeed a gift for me, especially I have had the opportunity to channel my ‘mbolang’ hobby to beautiful places. I can feel myself playing snow in the winter, staring at the leaves on trees that change color in the fall, all that is not in my country, Indonesia. But what I get is more than that. To America with scholarships, not only about mutual understanding between America and our culture, but furthermore: it’s about the world!

I met many people from across continents with different backgrounds. The interesting thing is that I can exchange ideas with them and sometimes I am amazed by the way they have never been in my mind. I became aware of their culture and instead of judging it, it made me understand, understand and appreciate them more. So actually going to America (or other countries) is not merely to check in at a different place, more than that is to open our minds.

THAT’S BECAUSE WHEN YOU KNOW MORE, YOU’LL UNDERSTAND MORE, AND BECOME WISER AND LESS JUDGMENTAL.

Another thing I like about studying in America is that I know how it feels to be a minority. As a Muslim, I belong to the majority group in Indonesia. Even though I have always had good relations with friends who are of different religions, being a minority in that country is very challenging. At first I was worried that there would be many people who disliked me, especially because I was wearing a hijab, my Islamic identity was very visible. We ourselves often hear a lot of media preaching the bad image of Islam in the world. Guess what, so far, Alhamdulillah, I feel safe and calm. I met many people who were very kind and friendly to me. They are very appreciative and always ready to help me. I feel protected. I think, maybe a minority group in Indonesia feels the same happiness when we respect and respect differences. And maybe, they feel the same fear and worry when we try to cheat their rights. My previous concerns were natural, but I didn’t need to worry too much, because in this life the basic principle is:

YOU TREAT PEOPLE WELL, THEY TREAT YOU WELL. IF YOU TREAT THEM WELL BUT THEY TREAT YOU BADLY, THEN THE PROBLEM IS WITH THEM, NOT YOU.

Aside from meeting with Americans and friends from other countries, I certainly also met with fellow practitioners from Indonesia who were not all under the auspices of the Fulbright, but different scholarship programs. I became embarrassed because I did not know about the programs before.

It turned out that the scholarship opportunity was far more than I expected. And this limited information is still a problem for parts of Indonesia. Even though there are many scholarship opportunities, not all of them have equal access to the information and not all are used to finding out for themselves.

It is not intended to indulge in the types of people who still like to be “fed” with this kind of information, but everyone needs different time to open their minds before they can be independent. It would be better if the school or the existing ranks expose as much information as possible about scholarships to students or students while training them to find information independently. Sometimes they don’t try not because they are afraid they don’t succeed, but precisely because they don’t know that they have the opportunity to try. And if they don’t find out, maybe because they are not familiar with things outside of what is being served to them. It’s our job to change this. Give them exposure to the opportunities, train them to look for this opportunity, and if one or two people succeed, we can hope that it can inspire and motivate others, not just in big cities or places, but we also need to show opportunities the same in other small or remote cities.

And if in the end there are those who are afraid to try even though they already know the opportunity, even though luck and external factors also contribute to our success / failure, we will never know if we don’t try.

If I’m not trying to apply for this scholarship, I’m 100% definitely not going to get it right? If I don’t try, the probability is only 1: I failed. By trying, you have two possibilities: succeed and fail. And you can keep trying, praying, and don’t forget to ask your parents’ blessing.

SO, GIVE IT A TRY! IF YOU WANT IT, DOING START SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

I hope that this writing rattles me has benefits. And I hope my writing will be read by my younger siblings in my school first or in other schools.

IF I CAN, THEY HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY.

Hoy dia nos encontramos en un momento donde podemos mejorar el medio ambiente, el cual nos pide a gritos que lo ayudemos instalando calentadores solares alta presion en nuestras casas industria o negocio ayudamos en gran manera al medio ambiente enviando menos CO2 a la atmosfera, sabias que hoy la capa de ozono se encuentra en plena recuperación, con las pocas acciones que hemos realizado, tu como ayudas

Tips for College While Working

Studying abroad without being funded by a scholarship can be very difficult. Therefore, it’s a good idea to make a financial budget carefully before deciding to study abroad. To ease the burden of expenses, you can consider going to college while working.

The consideration is whether part-time work will interfere with your studies. Actually it won’t be a problem if you can share your time well and be willing to work hard. The benefits of part-time work in addition to reducing costs are that you can hone your English skills. Then you also have a good chance to mingle with the local community. Especially if you have the opportunity to work in an office, this work experience will certainly add a plus when you are looking for work after graduating later.

There are indeed cases in America where foreign students get unpleasant treatment from their employers. Actually local students can experience the same thing. The cause here is the lack of information about workplaces and obstacles in fluency. As long as you choose your employer carefully, you can minimize unwanted events.

Before starting part-time work, do the following:

Check your visa

Visas with certain categories – such as Tier 4 visas in the UK – do not allow foreign students to work. Other visas may allow foreign students to work, but at certain time limits. For example in New Zealand, foreign students are not allowed to work more than 20 hours per week. If you violate these rules, you can be asked to immediately leave the country. So, before starting part-time work, check the limits of your visa.

Ask other foreign students

You can ask foreign students who work part time, there may be vacancies in their workplaces, or you can find information about the reputation of employers or workplaces that are more friendly to foreign students.

Consult with the university

Usually universities provide counseling services regarding part-time work. They even have connections with local companies. That way, you have the opportunity to get a job that is more secure and in accordance with your field of study.

Expertise That Needs a Student to Have

What is the lecture like? What is certain is that lecture life is of course very different from the life of high school. Starting from the style of the lecturer delivering lessons, completing assignments, participating in class and finding new friends, all are new experiences for a student who is just starting his steps as a student.

Steven Schwartz from The Guardian explained some of the skills students need to have to adjust to university life. Sometimes there are those who already have these skills but do not have the opportunity to show them so that they are not aware of their own potential. There are also some who while living university life have the opportunity to hone these skills. Yes, college is indeed the right time to look for and shape our own identity.

So what are some important skills for a student to have in order to achieve the best in college?

1. Flexible

Open minded is important. During college, especially abroad, of course we will see many differences of opinion and habits of life. That is a natural thing, because a different background will certainly affect the way of thinking and habits of one’s life. Considering that difference is something wrong is not the right step. It would be better to take advantage of this unique opportunity to get to know the culture and habits of fellow students from other countries and mingle with them. Thus you have one of the criteria that the company is interested in.

2. Never Surrender

Maybe some students face difficulties at the beginning of college. But don’t give up quickly. It’s natural to face culture shock, homesick, panic can’t take lessons and more. Relax, foreign universities always provide support services for international students. Starting from the place of consultation to counselors to help students take lessons. So when you find a problem, talk and seek help. After that maybe you will feel, actually this problem is not as big as I thought.

3. Can adjust

The more we mature, adjusting to the situation is very important. As children, maybe people around us still give understanding and yield. But this is not valid during college. For example, you are afraid to make a presentation in public. The lecturer will probably understand, but to get value, you still have to present well. The solution is to go to a student support center at the university. There they will give input and train you. One of the supervisors there is probably your senior who also used to have a feeling of insecurity to speak in public places. College is the time to get out of your comfort zone. Always don’t be afraid to talk about the problem at hand and ask for help. The student support center is there because the university understands naturally new students face discomfort with their new life. What is important, students want to try to find solutions.

4. Become a good member of the group

In college there are many tasks that must be completed in groups. Not because this task cannot be resolved on its own, but the lecturers do want to practice the ability to work in groups of students, where they can divide tasks, complete responsibilities, and more importantly, learn to be flexible and be able to overcome differences between group members. This group work is also a good opportunity to bring students closer to each other.

5. Technology Literacy

The university is full of sophisticated IT facilities. Because technology does make life easier for today’s society. So you should follow the times. At least make sure you know the software, applications or gadgets that are trending among students or in fields that are relevant to your studies.

6. Can read the situation

Wise people can read the situation, so they can teach or even lead. Whereas people who are not aware of what is happening can only follow. This ability will be very valuable when entering the real world: the world of work, where the boss or the people around us will not clearly tell us what we should do. So it must be smart to read the situation.

7. Learning without limits

During college grades are certainly important. But what is meant by learning here is not just knowledge but also other interpersonal skills. Science is limitless, so is the world we live in now. Change is always there, so we must stay alert and learn so we don’t miss it.

8. Take advantage of opportunities

For some people, what is important in college is pursuing value, so that you can get a certificate with good grades. But there are also people who use college to make friends, enjoy social life as a student. Some others understand that lecture is a preparation for entering the workforce, so that this time is well utilized to establish connections, both with lecturers, or with superiors during internships, so that later it is easier to find work. Which do you include?

Want to get out of your comfort zone immediately? Start by looking for a study program abroad that suits your interests and talents.

Don’t forget, i-Apply is always there if you need consultation about deciding majors, choosing a destination for college or other registration assistance.

Execution of Manuel Dorrego

By Ernesto Palacio (historian)

At the beginning of 1827, the brilliant victory of our arms in the war in Brazil had taken place, following the usurpation of the Banda Oriental: on 9 February, Admiral Brown had defeated the imperial fleet in the Juncal and on the 20th same month Alvear did the same thing-on land-in Ituzaingó. The Brazilian forces were undone, demoralized and in full dispersion. But this page of glory would be stained by one of the greatest shame the nation has suffered: when the general in chief requested reinforcements and horses to Buenos Aires to occupy the province of Rio Grande and march to the capital of the enemy, he was denied. Alvear would not reap the fruits of his victory, the country had given its effort and its blood in vain, because the government of Don Bernardino Rivadavia, at the moment of our triumphant arms, desperately asked for peace! And he asked for the most miserable of reasons: to quell what he called internal anarchy – the rebellious resistance of the interior to the tyranny that arose from the Unitarian twitch – and dispose of the forces of the national army to launch them against their compatriots.

Desiring the clamor of the interior and the claim of patriots such as Pueyrredón, who considered it unseemly to initiate peace negotiations when the toughest conditions could be imposed, President Rivadavia sends to Rio de Janeiro Dr. Manuel J. García with strict instructions to obtain peace. At whatever price. From the outset, as a conciliatory formula, Garcia had no qualms about proposing the independence of the Banda Oriental, according to suggestion received from the English minister Lord Ponsonby – elected as mediator – in charge of the task of pursuing the permanent British intention of obtaining a free port on the River of the Silver. Despite the plight of his armies, the Emperor of Brazil, aware of what was happening in Buenos Aires, did not agree. The fact is that Garcia ended up signing a preliminary convention by which our country recognized the rights of the Emperor over the Eastern Band and accepted the incorporation into the Empire of the Cisplatina province. Complete victors in the war, defeated complete in peace!

Happily, the reaction of the public spirit throughout the country, even in Buenos Aires, was violent and unanimous. Well-known the terms of the agreement, the town was thrown to the street, angry, in tumult. Rivadavia had to present the resignation, which was immediately accepted by Congress, and tried to institute in “emissary goat” Minister Garcia, declaring that he had exceeded in fulfilling his mission. But he did not deceive anyone, not even in his own party, which made him an immediate void.

The Congress elected a provisional president in the person of Vicente López, who appointed Juan Manuel de Rosas as general commander of the campaign and convened in a month the election of representatives to the Legislature of Buenos Aires, resulting in a large federal majority. Colonel Manuel Dorrego was elected governor. Meanwhile, the first squads of the national army that returned from the campaign against Brazil begin to arrive in Buenos Aires. Through the streets of the city the parade is followed with excitement as well as with regret for the failing state of the troop, who arrives with his uniform in tatters. Some think that after the military triumphs against Brazil, the struggle would have to continue; others that “the troops did not have to cover themselves but tatters and the soldiers lacked even grass and tobacco”. Dorrego appoints General Alvear to Lavalleja, who will continue with the favorable actions.

The coffers of Buenos Aires were exhausted. The Rivadavia administration had been ruinous and had exhausted the resources of the State in expenses of mere pageantry and in fighting its political enemies. But the unitary party had been defeated throughout the territory, and federalism was triumphant in the provinces. So the noble Dorrego developed his government with great moderation, without threats or persecution and with his innate and proverbial generosity. He is a brave; his military career has filled him with glory; his boldness and the sight of a born warrior stood out in the patriotic victories of Tucumán and Salta. He appointed ambassadors to treat peace in Rio de Janeiro to the prestigious generals Juan Ramón Balcarce and Tomás Guido, who signed the treaty of August 27, 1828, which recognized the independence of the Banda Oriental under the guarantee of the two signatory powers. The new and painful mutilation of territory was one more episode of the English interventionist policy in the Rio de la Plata, with its long aftermath of wars won and lost peace. On this occasion the Argentine pride tried to satisfy itself with the dubious consolation of having humiliated the Emperor, forcing him to part with the Cisplatina province, which he had sworn to defend to the last drop of his blood.

The restlessness of the government – and the hope of the outbreak of a unitary counter-coup – was based on the return to Buenos Aires of the forces highlighted in the Banda Oriental, who were anarchized by inaction and, above all, by the irregular payment of several months , disgusted by the result of the war and undermined by the active opposition propaganda. But Dorrego did not believe it, because he had a romantic conception of military camaraderie and considered it absurd that his companions in arms and glory, among whom he had so many friends, should rise up against him. When it was announced to him that the leader of the revolutionary coup would be General Juan Lavalle, he did not believe it either, attributing his exalted language to simple bravado. In addition, the governor had just made public the management of the unitary oligarchy, its alliances with English capital, its denunciations against the agiotistas merchants, and knew its total unpopularity in the interior. He believed them defeated forever and that was his mistake: Dorrego did not take Lavalle seriously.

Lavalle, who had won deserved laurels in Chile, in Peru, and in Brazil, was indeed reputed to be as brave as he was of little judgment. He had become notorious for his outbursts, with which he had confronted the Liberator Bolivar himself, and little tolerant in matters of discipline. Esteban Echeverría was going to paint him as “the saber without a head”. He was a typical Buenosairean, capable of the greatest deeds, but of frivolous and voluble background, more paid of the gesture than of the act and the look of being: condemned, in short, to be an instrument of those who knew how to flatter their weaknesses. In Buenos Aires, he had fallen into the hands of the circle of unitary doctors, who had him as a target and whose members he listened to as oracles for the seductive personal destiny they predicted. They had made him believe that Dorrego was the leader of the anarchists who caused all evil, a tyrant who oppressed the people supported by the lowest commoners, and a traitor to the fatherland. How could he not put his sword at the service of civilization, order and virtue?

On November 20, the first division of the Banda Oriental army commanded by General Enrique Martínez arrived in Buenos Aires. Ten days later, Juan Manuel de Rosas sent a message to Governor Dorrego: “The national army arrives demoralized by that lodge that has sold us for a long time.” The next day, December 1, 1828, the pronouncement broke out. The line corps of the army, the entire division of Enrique Martinez, fully uprising, penetrates the Plaza de la Victoria under the command of Juan Lavalle and Olavarría, heroes of the wars of independence and both of the cream of the “center “Buenos Aires. Groups of unitary civilians surround them and cheer, highlighting the somber figure of Dr. Aguero, who served as director of the function. Without strength to resist the line regiments, Dorrego left the Fort through the back door and went to the camp of the Rosas militias in San Vicente.

General Lavalle left in pursuit of the governor with a cavalry regiment. Against the opinion of Rosas, Dorrego decided to wait for him and face him. On December 9 they found themselves in the vicinity of Navarro, where poorly armed gaucho militias were defeated and dispersed by the experienced line troops. While Rosas went north to ask for help from the governor of Santa Fe, Dorrego sought to join Regiment 3 in the vicinity of Areco, under the command of his friend Colonel Angel Pacheco. Pacheco effectively gave him asylum and placed himself at his orders, but the commanders Acha and Escribano mutinied the troop, captured Dorrego and took him to the Capital. On the way they were ordered to change course and take the prisoner to Navarro’s camp where Lavalle was.

Dorrego asked Lavalle for guarantees for himself and a safe conduct to go abroad. But the unitary lodge had decided that it must die. Thus they hurried to remind the general of the letters written by the doctors to counteract the requests for clemency or a possible faintness of the will. “No half measures,” said Juan Cruz Varela, while rejoicing in El Pampero: “Low people no longer dominates, and the kitchen will return.” “You have to cut the first head of the hydra,” said Agüero. Salvador Maria del Carril, more categorical, referred: “I speak of the execution of Dorrego. We have agreed before now. The time has come to execute it. (…) A revolution is a game of chance where you earn the life of the vanquished. ”

One hundred and seventy-eight years ago today, on December 13, 1828, the prisoner Dorrego arrived at Navarro’s camp, and was informed that he would be shot in one hour. Lavalle did not want to-or could not-see it.

The journalist and historian José Manuel de Estrada (1842-1894), a lucid intellectual of the second half of the 19th century, wrote about the martyrdom of Manuel Dorrego: “He was an apostle and not of those who rise up in the midst of prosperity and of the guarantees, but an apostle of the tremendous crises. He stepped into the green countryside turned into a scaffold, teaching his fellow citizens clemency and fraternity, and leaving his sacrificers the pardon, on a summer day burning like his soul, and over which the night began to cast its veil of darkness, as death was about to cast its veil of mystery on him.

He let himself be killed with the sweetness of a child; he, who had all the volcanoes of passion inside his chest. He knew how to live like heroes and die like martyrs. ”

In the face of popular disqualification, the Decembrist coup failed completely and had to resort to a ferocious tyranny that, in those same days, San Martin failed in his return to the country. Refusing to disembark in February 1829, he rejected the role of “executioner of my fellow citizens,” while Lavalle and his veteran troops were defeated on April 25 at Puente de Marquez by the militias of Estanislao Lopez and Rosas. But there would be so many crimes of that tragic year of 1829, which is the only one in the demography of Buenos Aires where deaths exceeded births: there were 4,658 deaths, when in 1827 there were 1,904 and in 1828, 1,788. The expression “unitary savages” that then became popular was not at all whimsical.
The execution of Dorrego turned Juan Manuel de Rosas into the undisputed head of the federals, for a quarter of a century. To his foresight and tact was the unitary defeat and the consequent federal victory, when he became the acclaimed hero of the popular classes.

Of course, the shooting also inaugurated a very long period of civil wars that for decades was going to shower the Argentine territory with blood and mourning.

Spanish version:

Por Ernesto Palacio (historiador)

A principios de 1827 se había producido la brillante victoria de nuestras armas en la guerra del Brasil, a raíz de la usurpación de la Banda Oriental: el 9 de febrero el almirante Brown había derrotado a la escuadra imperial en el Juncal y el día 20 del mismo mes Alvear hizo lo propio -en tierra- en Ituzaingó. Las fuerzas brasileñas quedaron deshechas, desmoralizadas y en plena dispersión. Pero esta página de gloria sería manchada por una de las mayores vergüenzas que ha sufrido la nación: cuando el general en jefe solicitó refuerzos y caballadas a Buenos Aires para ocupar la provincia de Río Grande y marchar hasta la capital del enemigo, se le negó. Alvear no cosecharía los frutos de su victoria, la patria había dado su esfuerzo y su sangre en vano, porque el gobierno de don Bernardino Rivadavia, en el momento de nuestras armas triunfantes, ¡pedía desesperadamente la paz! Y la pedía por la más miserable de las razones: para sofocar lo que él llamaba anarquía interna –la resistencia rebelde del interior a la tiranía surgida del manotón unitario- y disponer de las fuerzas del ejército nacional para lanzarlas contra sus compatriotas.

Desoyendo el clamor del interior y el reclamo de patriotas como Pueyrredón, que consideraba indecoroso iniciar gestiones de paz cuando se podían imponer las condiciones más duras, el presidente Rivadavia envía a Río de Janeiro al doctor Manuel J. García con instrucciones rigurosas de obtener la paz a cualquier precio. De entrada, como fórmula conciliadora, García no tuvo reparos en proponer la independencia de la Banda Oriental, según sugestión recibida del ministro inglés Lord Ponsonby –elegido como mediador- encargado de turno de perseguir la permanente intención británica de obtener un puerto franco en el Río de la Plata. No obstante la situación apurada de sus ejércitos, el Emperador del Brasil, enterado de lo que ocurría en Buenos Aires, no accedió. Lo cierto es que García terminó firmando una convención preliminar por la cual nuestro país reconocía los derechos del Emperador sobre la Banda Oriental y aceptaba la incorporación al Imperio de la provincia Cisplatina. ¡Vencedores completos en la guerra, derrotados completos en la paz!

Felizmente, la reacción del espíritu público en todo el país, incluso en Buenos Aires, fue violenta y unánime. Conocidos los términos del convenio, el pueblo se lanzó a la calle, airado, en tumulto. Rivadavia tuvo que presentar la renuncia, que le fue inmediatamente aceptada por el Congreso, e intentó instituir en “chivo emisario” al ministro García, declarando que se había excedido en el cumplimiento de su misión. Pero no logró engañar a nadie, ni siquiera en su propio partido, que le hizo un vacío inmediato.

El Congreso eligió un presidente provisional en la persona de Vicente López, quien designó a Juan Manuel de Rosas comandante general de la campaña y convocó en un mes a elección de representantes a la Legislatura de Buenos Aires, resultando una gran mayoría federal. Fue electo gobernador el coronel Manuel Dorrego. Mientras, comienzan a llegar a Buenos Aires los primeros escuadrones del ejército nacional que regresaban de la campaña contra el Brasil. Por las calles de la ciudad el desfile es seguido con emoción al par que con pena por el estado desfalleciente de la tropa, que arriba con el uniforme hecho jirones. Algunos piensan que después de los triunfos militares obtenidos frente al Brasil habría que seguir la lucha; otros que “la tropa no tenía para cubrirse sino andrajos y los soldados carecían hasta de yerba y de tabaco”. Dorrego nombra en reemplazo del general Alvear a Lavalleja, que continuará con las acciones favorables.

Las arcas de Buenos Aires estaban exhaustas. La administración Rivadavia había sido ruinosa y había agotado los recursos del Estado en gastos de mero boato y en combatir a sus enemigos políticos. Pero el partido unitario había sido derrotado en todo el territorio, y el federalismo se hallaba triunfante en las provincias. Por lo que el noble Dorrego desarrolló su gobierno con gran moderación, sin amenazas ni persecuciones y con su innata y proverbial generosidad. Es un valiente; su carrera militar lo ha llenado de gloria; su arrojo y golpe de vista de guerrero nato se destacaron en las victorias patriotas de Tucumán y Salta. Nombró embajadores para tratar la paz en Río de Janeiro a los prestigiosos generales Juan Ramón Balcarce y Tomás Guido, que suscribieron el tratado del 27 de agosto de 1828 que reconocía la independencia de la Banda Oriental bajo la garantía de las dos potencias signatarias. La nueva y dolorosa mutilación de territorio constituyó un episodio más de la política intervencionista inglesa en el Río de la Plata, con sus largas secuelas de guerras ganadas y paces perdidas. En esta oportunidad el orgullo argentino trató de satisfacerse con el dudoso consuelo de haber humillado al Emperador, obligándolo a desprenderse de la provincia Cisplatina, que había jurado defender hasta la última gota de su sangre.

La inquietud del gobierno –y la esperanza del estallido de un contragolpe unitario- se fundaba en el regreso a Buenos Aires de las fuerzas destacadas en la Banda Oriental, que venían anarquizadas por la inacción y, sobre todo, por el pago irregular de varios meses, disgustadas por el resultado de la guerra y minadas por la activa propaganda opositora. Pero Dorrego no lo creía, porque tenía una concepción romántica de la camaradería militar y consideraba absurdo que se alzaran contra él sus compañeros de armas y de gloria, entre quienes contaba tantos amigos. Cuando se le anunció que el jefe del golpe revolucionario sería el general Juan Lavalle, tampoco lo creyó, atribuyendo a simple bravata su lenguaje exaltado. Además, el gobernador acababa de hacer públicos los manejos de la oligarquía unitaria, sus alianzas con el capital inglés, sus denuncias contra los comerciantes agiotistas, y conocía su total impopularidad en el interior. Los creía derrotados para siempre y ése fue su error: Dorrego no lo tomaba en serio a Lavalle.

Lavalle, que había ganado merecidos laureles en Chile, en Perú y en Brasil, tenía en efecto fama de ser tan valiente como de poco juicio. Se había hecho notorio por sus desplantes, con los que había enfrentado al propio Libertador Bolívar, y poco tolerante en materia de disciplina. Esteban Echeverría lo iba a pintar como “el sable sin cabeza”. Era un típico porteño, capaz de las mayores hazañas, pero de fondo frívolo y voluble, más pagado del gesto que del acto y del parecer que del ser: condenado, en suma, a ser instrumento de quienes supiesen halagar sus debilidades. En Buenos Aires había caído en manos del círculo de los doctores unitarios, que lo tenía como alelado y a cuyos miembros escuchaba como oráculos por el destino personal seductor que le vaticinaban. Ellos le habían hecho creer que Dorrego era el jefe de los anarquistas causantes de todos los males, un tirano que oprimía al pueblo apoyado en la más baja plebe, y un traidor a la patria. ¿Cómo no pondría su espada al servicio de la civilización, el orden y la virtud?

El 20 de noviembre llegó a Buenos Aires la primera división del ejército de la Banda Oriental al mando del general Enrique Martínez. Diez días después Juan Manuel de Rosas manda un aviso al gobernador Dorrego: “El ejército nacional llega desmoralizado por esa logia que desde hace mucho tiempo nos tiene vendidos”. Al día siguiente, 1º de diciembre de 1828, estallaba el pronunciamiento. Los cuerpos de línea del ejército, toda la división de Enrique Martínez, íntegramente sublevada, penetra en la plaza de la Victoria al mando de Juan Lavalle y de Olavarría, héroes de las guerras de la independencia y ambos de la flor y nata del “centro” porteño. Grupos de civiles unitarios los rodean y aclaman, destacándose la sombría figura del doctor Agüero, que hacía las veces de director de la función. Sin fuerzas para resistir a los regimientos de línea, Dorrego abandonó el Fuerte por la puerta trasera y se dirigió al campamento de las milicias de Rosas en San Vicente.

El general Lavalle salió en persecución del gobernador con un regimiento de caballería. Contra la opinión de Rosas, Dorrego decidió esperarlo y hacerle frente. El 9 de diciembre se encontraron en las proximidades de Navarro, donde las milicias de gauchos mal armados fueron derrotadas y dispersas por las experimentadas tropas de línea. Mientras Rosas se dirigió al norte a pedir auxilio al gobernador de Santa Fe, Dorrego buscó incorporarse al Regimiento 3 en las proximidades de Areco, al mando de su amigo el coronel Angel Pacheco. Pacheco efectivamente le dio asilo y se puso a sus órdenes, pero los comandantes Acha y Escribano amotinaron la tropa, apresaron a Dorrego y lo llevaron hacia la Capital. En el camino recibieron orden de cambiar de rumbo y conducir al prisionero al campamento de Navarro donde se hallaba Lavalle.

Dorrego pidió a Lavalle garantías para su persona y un salvoconducto para marchar al extranjero. Pero la logia unitaria había decidido que debía morir. Así se apuraron en recordárselo al general premiosas cartas escritas por los doctores para contrarrestar los pedidos de clemencia o un posible desfallecimiento de la voluntad. “Nada de medias tintas”, decía Juan Cruz Varela, mientras se regocijaba en El Pampero: “La gente baja ya no domina, y a la cocina se volverá”. “Hay que cortar la primera cabeza de la hidra”, afirmaba Agüero. Salvador María del Carril, más categórico, refería: “Hablo del fusilamiento de Dorrego. Hemos estado de acuerdo antes de ahora. Ha llegado el momento de ejecutarlo. (…) Una revolución es un juego de azar donde se gana la vida de los vencidos”.

Hace hoy ciento setenta y ocho años, el día 13 de diciembre de 1828 llegó el prisionero Dorrego al campamento de Navarro, y se le comunicó que sería fusilado en una hora. Lavalle no quiso –o no pudo- verlo.

El periodista e historiador José Manuel de Estrada (1842-1894), un lúcido intelectual de la segunda mitad del siglo XIX, escribió sobre el martirio de Manuel Dorrego: “Fue un apóstol y no de los que se alzan en medio de la prosperidad y de las garantías, sino apóstol de las tremendas crisis. Pisó la verde campiña convertida en cadalso, enseñando a sus conciudadanos la clemencia y la fraternidad, y dejando a sus sacrificadores el perdón, en un día de verano ardiente como su alma, y sobre el cual la noche comenzaba a echar su velo de tinieblas, como iba a arrojar sobre él la muerte su velo de misterio.

Se dejó matar con la dulzura de un niño; él, que había tenido dentro del pecho todos los volcanes de la pasión. Supo vivir como los héroes y morir como los mártires”.

Ante la descalificación popular, el golpe decembrista fracasó totalmente y debió recurrir a una feroz tiranía que, en esos mismos días, San Martín reprobó en su retorno al país. Negándose a desembarcar en febrero de 1829, rechazó el papel de “verdugo de mis conciudadanos”, mientras que Lavalle y sus tropas veteranas eran derrotadas el 25 de abril en Puente de Márquez por las milicias de Estanislao López y de Rosas. Pero serían tantos los crímenes de ese año trágico de 1829, que es el único en la demografía de Buenos Aires donde las defunciones superaron a los nacimientos: hubo 4.658 muertes, cuando en 1827 fueron 1.904 y en 1828, 1.788. La expresión “salvajes unitarios” que entonces se popularizó no fue para nada antojadiza.
El fusilamiento de Dorrego convirtió a Juan Manuel de Rosas en el jefe indiscutido de los federales, durante un cuarto de siglo. A su previsión y tacto se debió la derrota unitaria y la consiguiente victoria federal, cuando se convirtió en el héroe aclamado de las clases populares.

Claro que también el fusilamiento inauguró un período larguísimo de guerras civiles que por décadas iba a regar de sangre y luto el territorio argentino.

Rodolfo Puiggros Biografia

RODOLFO PUIGGRÓS, THE INTELLECTUAL NECESSARY

He was born on November 19, 1906 in Buenos Aires. He died on November 12, 1980 in Havana (Cuba).

Alberto Carmena (in NAC & POP – National and Popular News Network) reviews his life by saying:

“He completed his secondary studies in religious schools and began his university studies at the Faculty of Economic Sciences of the University of Buenos Aires. In 1926 he visited with his father the Soviet Union, staying in Europe until 1928.

Upon his return, he founded the newspaper “Brújulas”, the newspaper “Norte” in the province of Jujuy and the magazine “Argumentos”.

In 1932, together with the Rosario painter Antonio Berni, they made a study about the “Pichincha” prostitution district of the City of Rosario, when the mafia prevailed with Chicho Chico, Ágata Galifi and lawyer Luchini.

It joins the Communist Party, and is part of the Association of Intellectuals, Artists, Journalists and Writers (AIAIPE) founded in 1935 by Aníbal Ponce.

In 1946 he founds the Communist Workers Movement linked to the popular movement of General Perón, which earned him the expulsion from the PC in 1947.

From 1947 to 1955 he directed the publication Clase Obrera, linked to the Peronist movement.

He was editor of the newspaper Crítica de Natalio Botana from 1935 to 1955.

In 1956, he does not support Perón’s request to vote for Arturo Frodizi, advising to vote blank. He faced Arturo Jauretche who supported Frondizi and Frigerio the positive vote of Peronism.

From 1955 to 1961, he participated actively in the Peronist resistance through the organization Argentinos de Pie, which was part of the Commando de Organizaciones Revolucionarias (COR) of General Iñiguez.

In 1959 he travels to the People’s Republic of China, invited by his government.

In 1961 he self-exiles in Mexico, where he remained until 1967.

He was a professor at the UNAM and co-founder of the newspaper El Día and his supplement El Gallo Ilustrado.

Until 1977 he maintained a column on international issues. In 1971 he visits General Perón at the Puerta de Hierro residence in Madrid.

In 1973 he was appointed Rector of the University of Buenos Aires, which began to be called the National and Popular University of Buenos Aires.

Creates the Institute of the Third World with the direction of Father Hernán Benítez, with Sergio Puiggrós, Dúmar (Tito) Albavi and Mario Hernández, among others.
As his life was in danger due to repeated threats from López Rega’s triple A, the Montoneros organization moved him to Mexico with his partner Delia Carnelli.

In 1975 he supported the Autonomous Peronist Party. His son Sergio dies fighting as an officer of Montoneros in 1976.

In 1977 he directed the branch of Professionals, Intellectuals and Artists of the Montonero Peronist Movement, grouping Juan Gelman, Pedro Orgambide, Norman Brisky and Silvia Berman.

Then they join Pino Solanas, Rodolfo Walsh. Miguel Bonasso, Héctor Oesterheld, Paco Urondo and many more. He becomes part of the Montonero Peronist Movement’s driving table with Yager, Perdía, Obregón Cano, Vaca Narvaja, Bidegain, Pereyra Rossi and Firmenich.

He was founder of the Committee of Solidarity with the Argentine People (COSPA) When he died was his secretary general. He was succeeded by his wife Delia.

He also founded the Latin American Solidarity Committee with Mario Guzmán Galarza of Bolivia, Gabriel García Márquez of Colombia, Pedro Vuskovic of Chile, Gerard Pierre Charles of Haiti, Pablo González Casanova of Mexico. Jorge Turner Morales from Panama, Gerardo Carnero Checa from Peru, Carlos Quijano from Uruguay and others.

He directed Editorial Patria Grande until his death. (In Havana, Cuba, November 12, 1980) “.

Rodolfo Puiggrós did not need to wait until the seventies to join Peronism

The Communist Party, on the occasion of the days of October 17, in a “Declaration” dated 21/10/1945 and cited by Rodolfo Puiggrós in “Peronism: its causes”, proclaimed:

“The Peronist malon – with official protection and police advice that hit the country has quickly caused – due to its seriousness – the externalization of the popular repudiation of all sectors of the Republic in thousands of protests. Today, the Nation as a whole is clearly aware of the danger posed by Peronism and the urgency of putting an end to it. This poses a series of tasks for the militants of our Party that, for clarity, we have grouped into two ranks: democratic sanitation and political clarification.

On the one hand, sweep with e! Peronism and everything that is in some way its expression; By e! another, to carry out a campaign of clarification of the national problems, the way to solve them and to explain, before the broad masses of our people, even more than what has been done up to now, what Peronist demagogy represents. In the first order, our comrades must organize and organize for the fight against Peronism, until its annihilation.

It also corresponds here to point out the great task of cleaning the walls and streets of our cities from the filthy Peronist graffiti. Let there be no neighborhood or town without organizing the brigades of democratic reorganization. Our women must visit family homes, shops, etc., demanding coordinated and unanimous action against Peronism and its hordes.

Perón is the number one enemy of the Argentine people. ”

On the other hand, e! newspaper Orientación, official organ of the Communist Party led by Ernesto Giudici, states:

“But another spectacle has also been seen, that of the hordes of declassed being the vanguard of the alleged Peronist order. The little murga-looking clans that roamed the city do not represent any kind of society. That! malevaje recruited by the Ministry of Labor and Social Security to intimidate the population.

From Avellaneda came the armed bands of Peronism, obeying a plan of action led by the colonel and his Nazi advisers. Peronism managed to deceive some sectors of the working class, and those deceived sectors were in fact led by the Peronist lords, repeating scenes worthy of the time of Rosas; and mimicking what happened in the origins of fascism in Italy and Germany, demonstrated what it was, throwing itself against the defenseless population, against the home, against the houses of commerce, against modesty and honesty, against decency, against culture, and imposing the official strike, gun in hand and with the collaboration of the police that, that day and the next day, delivered the streets of the city to the barbaric and unleashed Peronism “.

The newspaper La Razón, also in those days, published a request of the Communist Party of the Province of Buenos Aires, “denouncing the excesses of Peronist elements of Cipriano Reyes and other adventurers in the pay of the Secretary of Labor, which in armed bands have gone provoking the population and forcing the workers to abandon their jobs. Such facts have been denounced to the Minister of! General Interior Avail by this committee. ”

Puiggrós confronts this truly reactionary and anti-popular position and is expelled from P.C.

It should be noted that also the Socialist Party, the other nucleation of the vernacular left, publishes in its newspaper La Vanguardia, the following:

“In the shallows and intricacies of society there is accumulated misery, pain, ignorance, indigence more mental than physical, unhappiness and suffering.

When a social cataclysm or a stimulus from the police mobilizes the latent forces of resentment, they cut all moral restraints, they give freedom to the uncontrolled powers, the part of the people who live that resentment and perhaps to their resentment, overflows in the streets, threatens, vociferates, runs over, assaults newspapers, pursues in its demonic fury to the own permanent champions and responsible for its elevation and dignification.

The trade union committee of the Socialist Party points out “the carnivalesque exteriorizations, excesses and iniquitous abuses produced in the strike, which was alien to the decision of the real organized workers”.

The University Federation of Buenos Aires (FUBA) favorite students of the “Youth Teachers”, according to Jauretche, proudly maintain “that there was a polarization of the social forces in conflict: the democratic sectors that attended the offices of the North American embassy and the pro-Peronist guild leaders and politicians who went to the Secretary of Labor. ”

The “Inteligentzia”, ​​as Don Arturo called it, coalesced and coincided in terms of opposition, with the agro-export oligarchy, the plundering bourgeoisie and the North American Embassy.

The Critical Journal pointed out: “Isolated groups that do not represent the authentic Argentine proletariat try to intimidate the population.”

In the Nation of October 17, 1945, this telegram appears:

“The democratic opinion of Argentina coincides with the position of Mr. Braden regarding the problem of freedom in America and he wishes to express that he would consider as a friendly attitude for our people and our democracy his confirmation as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American affairs. Credited to the Department of State of the United States: Victoria Ocampo, Adela Grondona, Ana Rosa Schliepper of Martinez Guerrero, Juan Antonio Solari, Sara Alvarez of Ezcurra, Alejandro Ceballos, Raúl Monsegur, Bernardo Houssay and Mariana Sáenz Valiente de Grondona “.

Rodolfo Puiggrós is the example of the committed intellectual. Founded in 1947 the Communist Workers Movement, is oriented towards popular nationalism and is strongly linked to Peronism.

He actively participates in the struggles of the Peronist Movement, always maintaining his firm commitment to the great majorities that, from the coup of 1955, faced dictatorial reaction.

Rigorous, he delved into the story with precision. “It marked a future with the approach of topics such as capitalism, the conquest of America, the discovery of Moreno, the critical study of Rosas in revisionist times, the need to build another model of country and not a copy of Spain. Understanding the twentieth century through the great national movements. ”

Puiggrós always questioned from his books, from the journalism, the chair and the political action, all the expressions of the liberalism that assumed like own the eurocentrista thought.

This is how it coincides with the men who, from FORJA, struggled to build a revolutionary national project, away from models that sought to transfer to the peripheral countries the contradictions between the Western powers and the Soviet Union.

They were always absent from Rodolfo Puiggrós’s thinking, both the “unique thought” and the self-designation of “revolutionary vanguard”, which some always adopted.

He is a “Legitimate heir of the revolutionary conceptions of the Latin American popular nationalism, expressed from the sanmartiniana, bolivariana and artigüista deeds by the federal montoneras rebelled against the project to conform in the rioplatense region a pastoral semicolon, Puiggrós coincided in practice with the affirmed by José Carlos Mariátegui: – All the thinkers of Our America have been educated in a European school. The spirit of the race is not felt in his work. The production of the continent’s intellectual lacks its own characteristics – “(Martín De Ambrosio)

And for that reason he stated: “The left share with liberalism and minority nationalism the mental habit of conceptualizing concepts, instead of conceptualizing the facts and the history of the Argentine reality”.
In 1956, he published the book “Critical History of Argentine Political Parties.”

This work is one of the central works in the vast work of the “organic intellectual” that was Rodolfo Puiggrós.

It is undoubtedly a work “damn” for the reactionaries of all skin, as it is a book of reflection for a public committed to the historical development of the country.

“With a dialectical materialist perspective, Puiggrós relates the international economic context with local peculiarities in order to trace the causes that drove or obstructed the development of the social and productive forces of Argentina.

The author’s analysis is thorough and erudite; his prose, incisive, ironic and passionate.

In – People and oligarchy -, the first volume, Puiggrós studies the independence movement and its limitations, reviews the years of the national organization, dismantles the functioning of the oligarchic finisecular Argentina and analyzes its progressive breakdown “.

Puiggrós says of his own work that “aspires to provide the reader with the premises of a national program of social changes, dictated by the contradictions of the concrete process, a program that has to be inspired (so as not to fall into the pettiness of the immediate) in ambition of the man who conquers spaces, takes from nature his intimate secrets and discovers the objective governing laws of the community in which he lives. ”

In the second volume, – El yrigoyenismo -, studies the rise of the Radical Civic Union to power in its double character as a product of capitalist modernization and mass popular movement in reaction against the forms that modernization assumed.

“In the third volume, – The left and the national problem -, Puiggrós is dedicated to the study of the ideological tradition of the Socialist and Communist parties, and portrays the thinking and political principles of Juan B. Justo and his disciples to then center the analysis in the Argentine communism, rigid and uncritically adhered in its initial stage to the slogans of the Third International “.

“In the fourth volume – Fraudulent democracy – the author develops the attempt to restore the conservative order and the crisis of the liberal model, the penetration of monopoly capital, the parliamentary opposition during the 1930s and its inadequacies, accompanied by the theoretical and political limitations of the left parties “.

“In the fifth volume, – Peronism: its causes -, studies the changes in the Argentine social structure that enabled the rise of Perón to power. The author describes the inability of the left political parties to understand the dimension of the new phenomenon, the new orientations of the working class and the reconstitution of the popular movement around the Peronist axis. This last volume of the collection closes with the events that culminated on October 17, 1945. ”

His work included some thirty books on Argentine history, Latin American history and philosophy, among which are “From the colony to the revolution”, “Roses the little”, “The era of Mariano Moreno”, “Economic history of the River de la Plata “and” The Spain that conquered the New World “.

In “History and National Memory in Argentina” Alberto Buela (Philosopher, Vice President of the South American Strategic Studies Center), says, among other things:

“Even though it is known – from Aristotle, through Lineo to our days – that no classification is exhaustive. However, the classification technique remains the most appropriate possibility to offer a brief and complete view on the subject to be discussed.

In the treatment of Argentine history, four broad historiographical currents can be distinguished grosso modo: the liberal or official, the revisionist or rosista, the liberal left or university and the national left or syncretistic.

The liberal current characterized by the Mayo-Caseros line is the one that wrote the official history of Argentina. Bartolomé Miter and Vicente Fidel López are its founders in the last quarter of the 19th century and the National History Academy with Ricardo Levene and company, has been its continuator to this day.

The revisionist current, as its name indicates, is the one that reviews the official history, transforming itself into its counterpart.

This current begins with the vindication of the figure of Juan Manuel de Rosas and has as background Francisco Bilbao and his Historia de Rosas (1872) and Adolfo Saldías with History of the Argentine Confederation (1892).

But revisionism as a historiographical current was born with the work of Ernesto Quesada, La Epoca de Rosas (1898), which is when, for the first time, the need to overcome the linear-positivist method of liberal historiography was denounced.

Both Bilbao and Saldías have a vindicating purpose, but their historical method is liberal, because – neither of them managed to get rid of the strict subjection to the written letter -, on the other hand Quesada establishes, through his method, the festina lente, the difference between the liberal-positivist explanation and the historicist understanding. So the contribution of the revisionist current is not exhausted in the claim but extends to the methodological.

This current is continued in the encyclopedic Argentine History of José María Rosa, in the eight volumes of Political Life of Roses through his correspondence of Julio Irazusta, in the didactic Argentine History of Ernesto Palacio and in multiple historians linked to the Institute of Historical Investigations Juan Manuel de Rosas.

The liberal current of the left or progressive is born more recently. Even when he incubated before, he has his floruit after the coup of 1955 that overthrows Perón. His main mentors are Tulio Halperín Donghi and Luis Alberto Romero, son of who was rector of the University of Buenos Aires with the “liberating revolution”, who are characterized, obviously, by his marked anti-Peronism.

His historical analyzes are marked by a diarchy of origin, since they apply Marxist categories but understood sub specie liberal politics.

This ambiguity, branded as a democrat and progressive, has allowed him to replace the “old liberal history” in all history teaching programs in both high school and university.

Finally we have the national left current, whose main speakers, unlike the left liberal, are pro-Peronist.

It has a marked economicist tinge in the treatment of history, typical of its Marxism of origin. To which we must add a high content as “social history”. It is a current of clear and express vocation of Ibero-American continental integration. Its main exponents and founders have been Jorge Abelardo Ramos (History of the Latin American nation), Rodolfo Puiggrós (Critical history of Argentine political parties) and the thinker Juan José Hernández Arregui (The formation of national consciousness).

There is, in our opinion, an illustrious antecedent of this current in the historian and sociologist of the beginning of the century, don Juan Agustín García, with his work on the colonial period entitled La Ciudad Indiana (1900).

Now, what do they have to do? and how do they have to do? These four historiographical currents in the constitution of the national memory of our people.

These are the issues that we must solve.

If it is said, a well-posed problem is already half solved. The problem of the existence of national memories is intrinsically linked to the existence of peoples. Or more precisely, the existence of peoples is the sine qua non condition of the existence of national memories. Because the people are the subject of these memories, as bearers of withholdings not fallen into oblivion.

Of course, for those who deny the existence of peoples as historical subjects, this meditation has no meaning. But as it is for us, let’s define then, what we understand as a people.

It is the group of men and women united by an ethnic-cultural conscience (language and values), of belonging to a specific community.

At the same time, the concept of the nation is expressed in the political-cultural project that a specific town is given in the history of the world. For its part, the nation acquires real existence, passes from the power to the act, when it is recognized by the international community. That is, when it is incarnated in a State, which is what offers the legal framework of your organization.

Otherwise, it remains in power, as in the case of the Grand Hispano-American Nation dreamed by Bolivar, San Martin, Morazán, Melgarejo and many others.

We see how the concept of nation is, first and foremost, a political-cultural notion, which acquires an official status when it is embodied in a State recognized as such. So, according to this, national memories go beyond national states. It is for this reason that we can speak with reason of the national memory of the Ibero-American people.

But also, just as the idea of ​​a nation is prior to that of the State because it founds it. It has ontological primacy because: It makes it be. The idea of ​​town has a historical priority, because the concept of town is historically prior to the concept of Nation-State that is a modern category. It is, without doubt, the most successful political fruit of modernity.

After this clearing of concepts what is clear is that the national memory has to do with the memory of the peoples, which in turn goes beyond the particular national histories, especially in the Ibero-American case. We already have a pattern. Any current limited to a “nationalism of borders inside,” of Patria Chica, little and nothing will have to do with the national memory. Not to mention those currents that “As our cults, according to the poet Homero Manzi, ascribe to all problems and strange solutions, and when they intervene in ours, they do so as foreigners”.

And if this is so, let us respond, then, to the questions posed:

What and how do Argentina’s historiographical trends have to do with the memory of our people?

The historiography of liberal cut: In nothing. It is a product of the Anglo-French colonial intelligenzia of the last century that is at the antipodes value of the national memory of our people. On the other hand, her own historiographical method of “strict submission to the written letter” disables her from incorporating any contribution from the collective oral memory. So, both ideologically and methodologically, the current of liberal cut is split from the national memory of the Argentine people.

The revisionist is linked in part to the memory of our people. Especially in the rescue of the theme of our genesis as a nation. We were not born in May of 1810 but three centuries before. And in the determination of our historical enemies: England and France and the fight of Roses against them.

The left liberal, not only has nothing to do, but also expressly denies popular memory.

In short, it is a by-product not only of the old liberal current to which is added a visceral anti-Peronism, which from the university chair, be it Argentine, American or European, does not already speak about what we were but about what we should be. It is a totally ideological vision in favor of the ideology of international democratic socialism.

Finally the national left current, something has to do with the memory of our people. Especially with its task of historical rescue of belonging of Argentina to the common Spanish-American Patria Grande and in the explicitation of the mechanisms of economic exploitation of the dependent societies.

In short, we see that only the Rosista revisionism and the national left have something in common with the national memory of our people. Only to the extent that they rescue values ​​that make up the national memory of Argentines such as their Spanish-Creole genesis and explain their enemies. At the same time that overcoming the wasteful nationalism of the nation-state, they insert us into the common destiny of the Hispanic-American Great Homeland and show the mechanisms of economic dependence.

No classification is exhaustive. In such a way that, it will not escape the attentive reader, that there are countless historians who carry out their task outside the mentioned currents.

You will observe, also, that the distinction between people as a subject of values; Nation as a cultural political project and State, is of singular importance to determine the location of the national memory in the town as bearer of retentions not fallen into oblivion.

It will be asked, then, how do the peoples constitute their respective memories? We respond that through the conservation of their experiences and struggles to exist and their values ​​transmitted from generation to generation. What in good Castilian is called tradition. That is, the transmission of something valuable from one generation to another

In such a way that historiographic currents participate to a greater or lesser extent in the national memory of the peoples, insofar as they participate in the explicitation of the experiences and values ​​that a people retains as their own “.

The ideological coherence of Puiggrós made him always be on the side of the Nation against the designs of the international centers of power; on the side of popular majorities against elitist projects; on the side of reality versus the enlightened and messianic; and for these reasons he confronted the ideas of conservative nationalism, the Stalinist left and liberalism.

Tireless fighter of thought, word and action, Rodolfo Puiggrós is the necessary intellectual.

Spanish version:

RODOLFO PUIGGRÓS, EL INTELECTUAL NECESARIO

Nace el 19 de Noviembre de 1906 en Buenos Aires. Fallece el 12 de Noviembre de 1980 en La Habana (Cuba).

Alberto Carmena (en NAC&POP – Red nacional y popular de Noticias) reseña su vida diciendo:

“Sus estudios secundarios lo realizó en colegios religiosos y comenzó sus estudios universitarios en la Facultad de Ciencias Económicas de la Universidad de Buenos Aires. En 1926 visitó con su padre la Unión Soviética, quedándose en Europa hasta 1928.

A su regreso, fundó el periódico “Brújulas”, el periódico “Norte” en la provincia de Jujuy y la revista “Argumentos”.

En 1932, junto con el pintor rosarino Antonio Berni, realizan un estudio sobre el barrio prostibulario “Pichincha” de la Ciudad de Rosario, cuando imperaba la mafia con Chicho Chico, Ágata Galifi y el abogado Luchini.

Se afilia al Partido comunista, y forma parte de la Asociación de Intelectuales, Artistas, Periodistas y Escritores (AIAIPE) que fundara en 1935 Aníbal Ponce.

En 1946 funda el Movimiento Obrero Comunista vinculándose al movimiento popular del General Perón, lo que le valió la expulsión del PC en 1947.

Desde 1947 a 1955 dirigió la publicación Clase Obrera, ligado al movimiento peronista.

Fue redactor del diario Crítica de Natalio Botana desde 1935 a 1955.

En 1956, no apoya el pedido de Perón de votar por Arturo Frodizi, aconsejando votar en blanco. Se enfrentó con Arturo Jauretche que apoyaba con Frondizi y Frigerio el voto positivo del peronismo.

Desde 1955 a 1961, participa activamente en la resistencia peronista a través de la organización Argentinos de Pie, que estaba dentro del Comando de Organizaciones Revolucionarias (COR) del General Iñiguez.

En 1959 viaja a la República Popular China, invitado por su gobierno.

En 1961 se autoexilia en México, donde permanece hasta 1967.

Fue profesor de la UNAM y cofundador del diario El Día y de su suplemento El Gallo Ilustrado.

Hasta 1977 mantuvo una columna sobre temas internacionales. En 1971 visita al General Perón en la residencia de Puerta de Hierro en Madrid.

En 1973 es nombrado Rector de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, que comenzó a llamarse Universidad Nacional y Popular de Buenos Aires.

Crea el Instituto del Tercer Mundo con al dirección del padre Hernán Benítez, con Sergio Puiggrós, Dúmar (Tito) Albavi y Mario Hernández, entre otros.
Como su vida corría peligro por reiteradas amenazas de la triple A de López Rega, la organización Montoneros lo traslada a México con su compañera Delia Carnelli.

En 1975 apoya al Partido Peronista Auténtico. Su hijo Sergio muere combatiendo como oficial de Montoneros en 1976.

En 1977 dirige la rama de Profesionales, Intelectuales y Artistas del Movimiento Peronista Montonero, agrupando a Juan Gelman, Pedro Orgambide, Norman Brisky y Silvia Berman.

Luego se suman Pino Solanas, Rodolfo Walsh. Miguel Bonasso, Héctor Oesterheld, Paco Urondo y muchos más. Pasa a formar parte de la mesa de conducción del Movimiento Peronista Montonero con Yager, Perdía, Obregón Cano, Vaca Narvaja, Bidegain, Pereyra Rossi y Firmenich.

Fue fundador del Comité de Solidaridad con el Pueblo Argentino (COSPA) Cuando falleció era su secretario general. Fue sucedido por su esposa Delia.

También fundó el Comité de Solidaridad Latinoamericana con Mario Guzmán Galarza de Bolivia, Gabriel García Márquez de Colombia, Pedro Vuskovic de Chile, Gerard Pierre Charles de Haití, Pablo González Casanova de México. Jorge Turner Morales de Panamá, Gerardo Carnero Checa de Perú, Carlos Quijano de Uruguay y otros.

Dirigió la Editorial Patria Grande hasta su muerte. (En La Habana, Cuba, el 12 de Noviembre de 1980)”.

Rodolfo Puiggrós no tuvo necesidad de esperar hasta la década del setenta para adherir al peronismo

El Partido Comunista, con motivo de las jornadas del 17 de Octubre, en una “Declaración” fechada el 21/10/1945 y citada por Rodolfo Puiggrós en “El peronismo: sus causas”, proclamaba:

“El malón peronista – con protección oficial y asesoramiento policial que azotó al país ha provocado rápidamente – por su gravedad – la exteriorización del repudio popular de todos los sectores de la República en millares de protestas. Hoy la Nación en su conjunto tiene clara conciencia del peligro que entraña el peronismo y de la urgencia de ponerle fin. Se plantea así para los militantes de nuestro Partido una serie de tareas que, para mayor claridad, hemos agrupado en dos rangos: higienización democrática y clarificación política.

Por un lado, barrer con e! peronismo y todo aquello que de alguna manera sea su expresión; por e! otro, llevar adelante una campaña de esclarecimiento de los problemas nacionales, la forma de resolverlos y explicar, ante las amplias masas de nuestro pueblo, más aun que lo hecho hasta hoy, lo que la demagogia peronista representa. En el primer orden, nuestros camaradas deben organizar y organizarse para la lucha contra el peronismo, hasta su aniquilamiento.

Corresponde aquí también señalar la gran tarea de limpiar las paredes y las calles de nuestras ciudades de las inmundas pintadas peronistas. Que no quede barrio o pueblo sin organizar las brigadas de reorganización democrática. Nuestras mujeres deben visitar las casas de familia, comercios, etcétera, reclamando la acción coordinada y unánime contra el peronismo y sus hordas.

Perón es el enemigo número uno del pueblo argentino”.

Por su parte, e! periódico Orientación, órgano oficial del Partido Comunista dirigido por Ernesto Giudici, afirma:

“Pero también se ha visto otro espectáculo, el de las hordas de desclasados haciendo de vanguardia del presunto orden peronista. Los pequeños clanes con aspecto de murga que recorrieron la ciudad no representan a ninguna clase de la sociedad. Es e! malevaje reclutado por la Secretaría de Trabajo y Previsión para amedrentar a la población.

Desde Avellaneda salían las bandas armadas del peronismo, obedeciendo un plan de acción dirigido por el coronel y sus asesores nazis. El peronismo logró engañar a algunos sectores de la clase obrera, y esos sectores engañados fueron en realidad dirigidos por el malevaje peronista, repitiendo escenas dignas de la época de Rosas; y remedando lo ocurrido en los orígenes del fascismo en Italia y Alemania, demostró lo que era, arrojándose contra la población indefensa, contra el hogar, contra las casas de comercio, contra el pudor y la honestidad, contra la decencia, contra la cultura, e imponiendo el paro oficial, pistola en mano y con la colaboración de la policía que, ese día y al día siguiente, entregó las calles de la ciudad al peronismo bárbaro y desatado”.

El Diario La Razón, también en esos días, publica una solicitada del Partido Comunista de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, “denunciando los desmanes de elementos peronistas de Cipriano Reyes y demás aventureros a sueldo de la Secretaría de Trabajo, que en bandas armadas han ido provocando a la población y obligando a los obreros a hacer abandono de sus trabajos. Tales hechos han sido denunciados al ministro de! Interior general Ávalos por este comité”.

A esta posición realmente reaccionaria y antipopular se enfrenta Puiggrós y es expulsado del P.C.

Cabe señalar que también el Partido Socialista, el otro nucleamiento de la izquierda vernácula, publica en su periódico La Vanguardia, lo siguiente:

“En los bajíos y entresijos de la sociedad hay acumuladas miseria, dolor, ignorancia, indigencia más mental que física, infelicidad y sufrimiento.

Cuando un cataclismo social o un estímulo de la policía moviliza las fuerzas latentes del resentimiento, cortan todos las contenciones morales, dan libertad a las potencias incontroladas, la parte del pueblo que vive ese resentimiento y acaso para su resentimiento, se desborda en las calles, amenaza, vocifera, atropella, asalta a diarios, persigue en su furia demoníaca a los propios adalides permanentes y responsables de su elevación y dignificación”.

La comisión gremial del Partido Socialista señala “las exteriorizaciones carnavalescas, desmanes y atropellos inicuos producidos en el paro, que fue ajeno a la decisión de los auténticos trabajadores organizados”.

La Federación Universitaria de Buenos Aires (FUBA) alumnos dilectos de los “Maestros de la Juventud” al decir de Jauretche, sostienen orgullosamente “que se había dado una polarización de las fuerzas sociales en pugna: los sectores democráticos que concurrían a los despachos de la embajada norteamericana y los dirigentes gremiales y políticos pro peronistas que acudían a la Secretaría de Trabajo”.

La “Inteligentzia” como la llamaba Don Arturo se cohesionaba y coincidía en términos de oposición, con la oligarquía agroexportadora, la burguesía expoliadora y la Embajada Norteamericana.

El Diario Crítica señalaba: “Grupos aislados que no representan al auténtico proletariado argentino tratan de intimidar a la población”.

En la Nación del 17 de octubre de 1945, aparece este telegrama:

“La opinión democrática argentina coincide con la posición de Mr. Braden respecto del problema de la libertad en América y desea expresar que consideraría como una actitud amistosa para nuestro pueblo y nuestra democracia su confirmación como secretario de Estado adjunto para los asuntos latinoamericanos – . Comunicación cursada al Departamento de Estado de los Estados Unidos. Firman: Victoria Ocampo, Adela Grondona, Ana Rosa Schliepper de Martínez Guerrero, Juan Antonio Solari, Sara Alvarez de Ezcurra, Alejandro Ceballos, Raúl Monsegur, Bernardo Houssay y Mariana Sáenz Valiente de Grondona”.

Rodolfo Puiggrós es el ejemplo del intelectual comprometido. Funda en 1947 el Movimiento Obrero Comunista, se orienta hacia el nacionalismo popular y se vincula fuertemente al peronismo.

Participa activamente en las luchas del Movimiento Peronista, manteniendo siempre su decidida adhesión a las grandes mayorías que a partir del golpe gorila de 1955 enfrentaron a la reacción dictatorial.

Riguroso, hurgaba con precisión en la historia. “Marcó un futuro con el abordaje de temas como el capitalismo, la conquista de América, el descubrimiento de Moreno, el estudio crítico de Rosas en tiempos revisionistas, la necesidad de construir otro modelo de país y no una copia de España. Entender el siglo XX a través de los grandes movimientos nacionales”.

Puiggrós cuestionó siempre desde sus libros, desde el periodismo, la cátedra y la acción política, todas las expresiones del liberalismo que asumían como propio el pensamiento eurocentrista.

Es así que coincide con los hombres que desde FORJA bregaron por la construcción de un proyecto nacional revolucionario, alejado de modelos que pretendían trasladar a los países periféricos las contradicciones entre las potencias occidentales y la Unión Soviética.

Siempre estuvieron ausentes del pensamiento de Rodolfo Puiggrós, tanto el “pensamiento único”, como la autodesignación de “vanguardia revolucionaria”, que siempre algunos adoptaron.

Es un “Legítimo heredero de las concepciones revolucionarias del nacionalismo popular latinoamericano, expresado desde la gesta sanmartiniana, bolivariana y artigüista por las montoneras federales rebeladas contra el proyecto de conformar en la región rioplatense una semicolonia pastoril, Puiggrós coincidió en la práctica con lo afirmado por José Carlos Mariátegui: – Todos los pensadores de Nuestra América se han educado en una escuela europea. No se siente en su obra el espíritu de la raza. La producción del intelectual del continente carece de rasgos propios -“. (Martín De Ambrosio)

Y por ello planteó: “Las izquierdas comparten con el liberalismo y el nacionalismo de minorías el hábito mental de conceptuar conceptos, en lugar de conceptuar los hechos y la historia de la realidad argentina”.
En 1956, publica el libro “Historia crítica de los partidos políticos argentinos”.

Esta obra es uno de los trabajos centrales en la vasta obra del “intelectual orgánico” que fue Rodolfo Puiggrós.

Es sin duda, una obra “maldita” para los reaccionarios de todo pelaje, ya que es un libro de reflexión para un público comprometido con el devenir histórico del país.

“Con una perspectiva materialista dialéctica, Puiggrós relaciona el contexto económico internacional con las peculiaridades locales para así rastrear las causas que impulsaron u obturaron el desarrollo de las fuerzas sociales y productivas de la Argentina.

El análisis del autor es minucioso y erudito; su prosa, incisiva, irónica y apasionada.

En – Pueblo y oligarquía – , el primer tomo, Puiggrós estudia el movimiento independentista y sus limitaciones, pasa revista a los años de la organización nacional, desmonta el funcionamiento de la Argentina oligárquica finisecular y analiza su progresivo resquebrajamiento”.

Dice Puiggrós de su propia obra que “aspira a proporcionar al lector las premisas de un programa nacional de cambios sociales, dictado por las contradicciones del proceso concreto, programa que tiene que inspirarse (para no caer en la mezquindad de lo inmediato) en la ambición del hombre que conquista los espacios, arranca a la naturaleza sus íntimos secretos y descubre las leyes objetivas rectoras de la comunidad en que vive.”

En el segundo volumen, – El yrigoyenismo -, estudia el ascenso de la Unión Cívica Radical al poder en su doble carácter de producto de la modernización capitalista y de movimiento popular de masas en reacción contra las formas que esa modernización asumía.

“En el tercer volumen, – Las izquierdas y el problema nacional -, Puiggrós se dedica al estudio de la tradición ideológica de los partidos Socialista y Comunista, y retrata el pensamiento y los principios políticos de Juan B. Justo y sus discípulos para luego centrar el análisis en el comunismo argentino, rígida y acríticamente adherido en su etapa inicial a las consignas de la Tercera Internacional”.

“En el cuarto volumen – La democracia fraudulenta – , el autor desarrolla el intento de restauración del orden conservador y la crisis del modelo liberal, la penetración del capital monopolista, la oposición parlamentaria durante la década del ´30 y sus insuficiencias, acompañadas de las limitaciones teóricas y políticas de los partidos de izquierda”.

“En el quinto volumen, – El peronismo: sus causas – , estudia los cambios en la estructura social argentina que posibilitaron el ascenso de Perón al poder. El autor describe la incapacidad de los partidos políticos de izquierda para comprender la dimensión del nuevo fenómeno, las nuevas orientaciones de la clase trabajadora y la reconstitución del movimiento popular en torno al eje peronista. Este último volumen de la colección, se cierra con los acontecimientos que culminaron el 17 de octubre de 1945”.

Su obra comprendió unos treinta libros sobre historia argentina, latinoamericana e historia de la filosofía, entre los cuales se destacan “De la colonia a la revolución”, “Rosas el pequeño”, “La época de Mariano Moreno”, “Historia económica del Río de la Plata” y “La España que conquistó el Nuevo Mundo”.

En “Historia y Memoria Nacional en Argentina” Alberto Buela (Filosofo, Vicepresidente del Centro de Estudios Estratégicos Suramericanos), dice, entre otras cosas:

“Aun cuando se sabe – desde Aristóteles, pasando por Lineo hasta nuestros días- que ninguna clasificación es exhaustiva. No obstante la técnica de la clasificación sigue siendo la posibilidad más adecuada para ofrecer una visión breve y completa sobre el asunto a exponer.

En el tratamiento de la historia argentina pueden distinguirse grosso modo cuatro grandes corrientes historiográficas: la liberal u oficial, la revisionista o rosista, la liberal de izquierda o universitaria y la izquierda nacional o sincretista.

La corriente liberal caracterizada por la línea Mayo-Caseros es la que escribió la historia oficial de la Argentina. Bartolomé Mitre y Vicente Fidel López son sus fundadores en el último cuarto del siglo XIX y la Academia Nacional de Historia con Ricardo Levene y compañía, ha sido su continuadora hasta nuestros días.

La corriente revisionista, como su nombre lo indica, es la que revisa la historia oficial, transformándose en su contrapartida.

Esta corriente se inicia con la reivindicación de la figura de Juan Manuel de Rosas y tiene como antecedentes a Francisco Bilbao y su Historia de Rosas(1872) y a Adolfo Saldías con Historia de la Confederación Argentina(1892).

Pero el revisionismo como corriente historiográfica nace con el trabajo de Ernesto Quesada, La Epoca de Rosas (1898) que es cuando por primera vez se denunció la necesidad de superar el método lineal-positivista de la historiografía liberal.

Tanto Bilbao como Saldías tienen un propósito reivindicatorio, pero su método histórico es liberal, pues – ninguno de los dos consiguió desaferrarse de la sujeción estricta a la letra escrita -, en cambio Quesada establece, a través de su método, el festina lente, la diferencia entre la explicación liberal-positivista y la comprensión historicista. De modo que el aporte de la corriente revisionista no se agota en lo reivindicativo sino que se extiende a lo metodológico.

Esta corriente se continúa en la enciclopédica Historia Argentina de José María Rosa, en los ocho tomos de Vida política de Rosas a través de su correspondencia de Julio Irazusta, en la didáctica Historia Argentina de Ernesto Palacio y en múltiples historiadores vinculados al Instituto de Investigaciones históricas Juan Manuel de Rosas.

Las corriente liberal de izquierda o progresista nace más recientemente. Aun cuando se incuba antes, tiene su floruit después del golpe de Estado de l955 que derroca a Perón. Sus principales mentores son Tulio Halperín Donghi y Luis Alberto Romero, hijo de quien fuera rector de la Universidad de Buenos Aires con la “revolución libertadora”, quienes se caracterizan ,obviamente, por su marcado antiperonismo.

Sus análisis históricos están signados por una diarquía de origen, pues aplican categorías marxistas pero entendidas sub specie política liberal.

Esta ambigüedad, tildada de demócrata y progresista, le ha permitido reemplazar a la “vieja historia liberal” en todos los programas de enseñanza de historia tanto en la escuela secundaria como en la universidad.

Finalmente tenemos la corriente de izquierda nacional, cuyos principales expositores, a diferencia de la liberal de izquierda, son pro-peronistas.

Posee un marcado tinte economicista en el tratamiento de la historia, propio de su marxismo de origen. Al que debemos sumar un alto contenido como “historia social”. Es una corriente de clara y expresa vocación de integración continental iberoamericana. Sus principales exponentes y fundadores han sido Jorge Abelardo Ramos (Historia de la nación latinoamericana), Rodolfo Puiggrós (Historia crítica de los partidos políticos argentinos) y el pensador Juan José Hernández Arregui (La formación de la conciencia nacional).

Existe, en nuestra opinión, un antecedente ilustre de esta corriente en el historiador y sociólogo de principios de siglo don Juan Agustín García con su trabajo sobre la época colonial titulado La Ciudad Indiana (1900).

Ahora bien, ¿qué tienen que ver? y ¿cómo tienen que ver? estas cuatro corrientes historiográficas en la constitución de la memoria nacional de nuestro pueblo.

Estas son las cuestiones que debemos resolver.

Si como se dice, un problema bien planteado está ya medio resuelto. El problema de la existencia de las memorias nacionales se encuentra intrínsecamente vinculado con la existencia de los pueblos. O más precisamente, la existencia de los pueblos es la condición sine qua non de la existencia de las memorias nacionales. Porque el pueblo es el sujeto de esas memorias, en tanto que portador de retenciones no caídas en el olvido.

Claro está, para aquellos que niegan la existencia de los pueblos como sujetos históricos esta meditación carece de sentido. Pero como para nosotros lo tiene, definamos entonces, qué entendemos por pueblo.

Es el conjunto de hombres y mujeres unidos por una conciencia étnico-cultural (lengua y valores), de pertenencia a una comunidad determinada.

A su vez el concepto de nación se expresa en el proyecto político-cultural que un pueblo determinado se da en la historia del mundo. Por su parte, la nación adquiere existencia real, pasa de la potencia al acto, cuando es reconocida por la comunidad internacional. Esto es, cuando se encarna en un Estado, que es el que le ofrece el marco jurídico de su organización.

De lo contrario, queda en potencia, como el caso de la Gran Nación Hispanoamericana soñada por Bolivar, San Martín, Morazán, Melgarejo y tantos otros.

Vemos como el concepto de nación es, primero y antes que nada, una noción político-cultural, que adquiere un status oficial cuando se plasma en un Estado reconocido como tal. De modo, que según esto, la memorias nacionales van más allá de los Estados nacionales. Es por este motivo que nosotros podemos hablar con razón de la memoria nacional del pueblo iberoamericano.

Pero además, así como la idea de nación es anterior a la de Estado porque lo funda. Tiene primacía ontológica porque: Lo hace ser. La idea de pueblo tiene una prioridad histórica, pues el concepto de pueblo es históricamente anterior al concepto de Estado-Nación que es una categoría moderna. Es, sin lugar a dudas, el fruto político más logrado de la modernidad.

Luego de este desbroce de conceptos lo que queda claro es, que la memoria nacional tiene que ver con la memoria de los pueblos, que a su vez va más allá de las historias nacionales particulares, sobretodo en el caso iberoamericano. Ya tenemos, pues, una pauta. Toda corriente limitada a un “nacionalismo de fronteras adentro”, de Patria Chica, poco y nada tendrá que ver con la memoria nacional. Ni que decir de aquellas corrientes que “Como nuestros cultos, al decir del poeta Homero Manzi, adscriben a todos los problemas y soluciones extrañas, y cuando intervienen en los nuestros, lo hacen como extranjeros”.

Y si esto es así, respondamos, entonces, a las preguntas planteadas:

¿Qué y cómo tienen que ver las corrientes historiográficas argentinas en la memoria de nuestro pueblo?

La historiografía de corte liberal: En nada. Es un producto de la intelligenzia colonial anglo-francesa del siglo pasado que se encuentra en las antípodas valorativas de la memoria nacional de nuestro pueblo. Por otra parte, su propio método historiográfico de “sujeción estricta a la letra escrita” la inhabilita para incorporar ningún aporte de la memoria oral colectiva. Así pues, tanto ideológica como metodológicamente la corriente de corte liberal se encuentra escindida de la memoria nacional del pueblo argentino.

La revisionista se encuentra vinculada en parte a la memoria de nuestro pueblo. Sobretodo en el rescate del tema de nuestra génesis como nación. No nacimos en mayo de 1810 sino tres siglos antes. Y en la determinación de nuestros enemigos históricos: Inglaterra y Francia y la lucha de Rosas contra ellos.

La liberal de izquierda, no sólo nada tiene que ver, sino que además niega expresamente la memoria popular.

En definitiva, es un subproducto no sólo de la vieja corriente liberal a la que se le suma un visceral antiperonismo, que desde la cátedra universitaria, sea argentina, estadounidense o europea no habla ya sobre lo que fuimos sino acerca de lo que debemos ser. Es una visión totalmente ideologizada en favor del ideario del socialismo democrático internacional.

Finalmente la corriente de izquierda nacional, algo tiene que ver con la memoria de nuestro pueblo. Sobretodo con su tarea de rescate histórico de pertenencia de la Argentina a la común Patria Grande hispanoamericana y en la explicitación de los mecanismos de explotación económica de las sociedades dependientes.

Resumiendo vemos que sólo el revisionismo rosista y la izquierda nacional tienen algo en común con la memoria nacional de nuestro pueblo. Sólo en la medida en que rescatan valores que conforman la memoria nacional de los argentinos como son su génesis hispano-criolla y explicitan sus enemigos. Al par que superando el huero nacionalismo del Estado-nación nos insertan en el destino común de la Patria Grande Hispanoamericana y muestran los mecanismos de la dependencia económica.

Ninguna clasificación es exhaustiva. De modo tal que, no escapará al lector atento, que existen un sin número de historiadores que realizan su tarea al margen de las corrientes mencionadas.

Observará, también, que la distinción entre pueblo como sujeto de valores; nación como proyecto político cultural y Estado, es de singular importancia para determinar el emplazamiento de la memoria nacional en el pueblo como portador de retenciones no caídas en el olvido.

Se preguntará, entonces, ¿cómo constituyen los pueblos sus respectivas memorias?. Respondemos que a través de la conservación de sus vivencias y luchas por existir y de sus valores transmitidos de generación en generación. Lo que en buen castellano se denomina tradición. Esto es, la transmisión de algo valioso de una generación a otra

De modo tal que las corrientes historiográficas participan en mayor o menor medida en la memoria nacional de los pueblos, en tanto y cuanto participan en la explicitación de las vivencias y valores que un pueblo retiene como propios”.

La coherencia ideológica de Puiggrós lo hizo estar siempre del lado de la Nación frente a los designios de los centros internacionales de poder; del lado de las mayorías populares frente a los proyectos elitistas; del lado de la realidad frente a los iluminados y mesiánicos; y por estos motivos confrontó con las ideas del nacionalismo conservador, de la izquierda stalinista y del liberalismo.

Luchador incansable del pensamiento, la palabra y la acción, Rodolfo Puiggrós es el intelectual necesario.